warri0r45

I obviously lose at internets. I got no idea what you guys are on about.

I'd just like to add my experience with ethics in school. I went to a Lutheran highschool and in grade 11 I believe, in our Christian Studies class, we did a couple week long unit on ethics. The teacher was a Christian and took us through a list of ethical situations and we had class discussions. I was really admirable of how he could be an objective moderator even though there were at times some pretty contentious issues coming up like stem cell research and the death penalty. I dunno, I just think with the right people and in the right framework, it could be really beneficial. It tought me to think about some moral situations and was above all really enjoyable. I'd argue an absolutely crucial issue regarding an ethics class is that it gets you to think of the consequences to ethical scenarios. This, above all, could really see the decency of a person come out when they consider a possible unethical situation and they just think about it instead of relying on a narrow nonconsequentialist foresight (not trying to say deontology is wrong, I'm just saying thinking of consequences can be a crucial way to prevent what many would consider morally wrong actions).

Word for word exactly what I was going to say. Agreed. I think inspiring discussion is a good way to go too, not just "this is right, this is wrong". On the other hand, I could see some positives on grabbing a few of the major holy texts and picking out some 'morals' and seeing if you think they are right or wrong. Chance of upsetting a few people? Sure, but who here or anywhere in a western school these days would see it as 'right' to kill your kids if they are bugging and disrespecting you? You know the real interesting thing? We as humans, and even those who believe in an absolute morality, have the capacity to pick and choose what we believe to be right and wrong and the results seem to be pretty similar (in the western world at least) even though the very source of these absolute morals is the holy one himself. Who are we to question the very source of the absolute morals themselves if we don't begin to question the whole system? If we think we can pick and choose, why call the moral system absolute at all?

Wildernessfreelancer: The misstatements of fact and fallacies in your post are atrocious. Nothing has been proven to travel faster than the speed of light. The idea that there is an 'afterlife' or a 'soul' has not been proven and can not be by scientific means. That you deduce god exists from the idea's pervasion through time is erroneous and an argument ad populum fallacy. The world's population is roughly 6.5 billion. There are roughly 780 million Hindus (obviously focused in India) and 300 million Buddhists in the world. Neither of these two religions have what you would call an ordinary god-belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups Just because you say a popular idea will be proven sooner or later dosen't make it so. There is no way of proving the existance of a supernatural entity by natural means. You're right, just because something is unproven dosen't make it untrue, yet the inverse is also the case - just because something is unproven (or should I say unfalsified?) dosen't give you artistic licence to claim it's true. There is no such scientific term as the 'unknown section' and if an idea in this 'unknown section' happens to be unfalsifiable or unverifiable by natural means, then it's not a scientific concern. You dismissing BlueLancer's Santa Claus/FSM examples on the basis of them not having been around as long as the god idea is an appeal to the time an idea has been around. The more time an idea lasts (and the more popular it gets) does not equal the more true it gets. An event horizon is not unobservable because it's particles travel faster than light, it's because light itself can not escape the black hole's gravitational pull, especially at the event horizon.

I don't know whether you're joking or not, but way to grossly misapply a scientific law. A human neurological response to stimuli isn't akin to playing a game of cricket (my Aussie-centric example of Newtons 3rd law in play). If someone punches you in the face, your face goes in the opposite direction of the swinging fist, your fist dosen't swing back because of Newton's 3rd law.

Music - listening to, writing and playing.

You make it sound like God is only relevant to creation and that I only believe in God to fill the gaps in the origin of the universe. It smells like a straw-man. I presented more my views of god, not yours. I view god in this way, sorry if it came across that I said these were your views.

Then matter is your "god". It's whatever seems more logical to you. For me, a hunk of matter as the necessary being just doesn't cut it. To me, the mere fact that we can envisage someting more sensible to explain the issue away just dosen't cut it. Applying a consideration to the universe (the need for a creator) which dosen't fall back to the creator himself just because we envisage him being outside our rules dosen't cut it for me (all the better that him being outside the rules makes our detection of him by any mortal means impossible). What if he has his own rules which make his creation necessary? I don't see it as a particularly compelling answer right now to envisage a personified character to end the deadlock. No doubt this whole issue would be down to what you think would be a sensible answer - there's obviously no science to it. You've seen my views, and I can respect others. I'm just the kind of person who has more questions than answers. So you are admitting there is something greater? I'm not questioning anything about you've yet this statement has stood out from your others. I find it incoceivable that there is not something larger than us. Whether it be science or a divine being. It all comes down to what you think is more rational. Which is an unhinging thought. :uhh: It scares me to death although I've learned it's better to believe and just do so (in whatever you believe). Simplicity is bliss. Well for me it is. I believe that exploration just leads to more unanwsered questions which is, personally, not what I need right now. No. There is no need for me to 'admit' anything. I see some creation idea as possible but I outlined why I question it and see it as a pretty empty idea with current knowledge (basically any 'answer' here is unsatisfying to me - I'm always left with questions rather than answers). To frame those questions, you have to inevitably treat the idea as if it were real. I was basically hypothesising.

Then matter is your "god". It's whatever seems more logical to you. For me, a hunk of matter as the necessary being just doesn't cut it. To me, the mere fact that we can envisage someting more sensible to explain the issue away just dosen't cut it. Applying a consideration to the universe (the need for a creator) which dosen't fall back to the creator himself just because we envisage him being outside our rules dosen't cut it for me (all the better that him being outside the rules makes our detection of him by any mortal means impossible). What if he has his own rules which make his creation necessary? I don't see it as a particularly compelling answer right now to envisage a personified character to end the deadlock. No doubt this whole issue would be down to what you think would be a sensible answer - there's obviously no science to it. You've seen my views, and I can respect others. I'm just the kind of person who has more questions than answers.

I actually see you rule out Creationism all the time, and I'm sure you haven't discovered the spiritual side of yourself enough to be able to rule it out. That's what I've gathered from your posts from the last 12 months. Obviously not knowing you personally I can't tell you that with 100% belief, but I'm sure I've guessed correctly. :wink: I've ruled out strict biblical creationism based on personal research into evolution, etc. I haven't ruled out some type of broad creation based existance by any means. Any attack you've probably seen me lodge over the past 12 months would have been against biblical creationism, which is, as I see it, contradictory to known science. Ah ok. Your opinion I accept - agree to disagree. There's no need starting up another one of these creation vs. evolution arguments. Especially since it wastes hours of my afternoons and evenings in the end, and nothing changes. :lol: Yeah, I'll only discuss if people want to, if they bring it up themselves or if it's relevant. But at the moment, this topic is not about that. :wink:

I actually see you rule out Creationism all the time, and I'm sure you haven't discovered the spiritual side of yourself enough to be able to rule it out. That's what I've gathered from your posts from the last 12 months. Obviously not knowing you personally I can't tell you that with 100% belief, but I'm sure I've guessed correctly. :wink: I've ruled out strict biblical creationism based on personal research into evolution, etc. I haven't ruled out some type of broad creation based existance by any means. Any attack you've probably seen me lodge over the past 12 months would have been against biblical creationism, which is, as I see it, contradictory to known science.

I'm by no means a FOB fan, but I love that song. Nice little solo. Fun song. I wouldn't call it 'funeral material', though. :lol: It's like "he's dead!! Now let's dance" \ But, I suppose that's the mood some people want to go for.

I'd prefer not to comment though my own ignorance. I don't know enough about QM to comment on how strong it is nor do I 'believe' it is good or bad science. I reserve judgement until I am no longer ignorant of it. You're thinking of innocent untill proven guilty. It dosen't work that way in science, a hypothesis is 'unproven' until tested and supported, at which time it will be supported or not, depending on the outcome of the test. The thing there is we can postulate where life may exist on other planets based on the knowledge of life on our planet. But still, you've come to the wrong person. I don't 'believe' in aliens. I think it could be possible they could exist, based on the nature of life and the abundance of possible life harbouring systems in our universe. Why do I get hungry? Science has an answer (I wont bore you and myself by looking up the dynamics of hunger stimulating hormones of the stomach). So science can also answer 'why'. As for why we exist, as in why existance is rather than is not, sure, you could use god to answer why.

double post

(1) Wouldn't you just love what I have to show you. It's not just an 'educated guess', every single observation ever made coincides with evolution, dispite what any apologist is willing to misconstrue and throw at you, some observations which simply can't be explained in any other way. Hence why evolution is considered fact in the scientific community. [hide]

At my immediate disposal I'd have the choice of a slicing or a clubbing weapon - a kitchen knife or a frying pan. I'd be tempted to grab both and go duel wield on their [wagon] (club in the face with right hand, stab in the guts with left). Then I'd make my way out of the house, haul [wagon] to find a place that has guns and get some heat. I'd stock up on as much ammo as I can, provided the place where the guns are isn't overly infested with zombies. I'd then drive to a secluded spot, grabbing any unzombified allies along the way and upon arrival begin to plan for mass zombie extermination, possibly involving flamethrowers.

Haha, tough choice. Either not be able to fit through things or not be able to reach things. The difference is you can't just adjust doorways to make you fit yet you can take a step ladder to make you reach. It'll probably fit through those big doors too. :wink:

Some people don't see a creator as a particularly compelling answer nor do they see him as any more prone to "creationlessness" than some other arbitrary character. Some people just endlessly question on an issue like this and have no answer. I suppose you could call me one of those people. You act as if, you like to leave 'all your options open' when it comes to how the world was created by being open to all 'theories' yet you'll take in no consideration (you and the other big bang etc etc type of people) to the fact that there might be a creator. Big double standard if you ask me. There very well may be a creator. I'm not saying there isn't, I just reserve the right to argue against it or any other belief based idea. I'll inevitably argue against the creator-god idea as it's the most prominent and I think it's had it far too good for far too long. (1) That's my point. You'll argue against any 'belief based' idea yet totally open yourself to any thought of man's attempts to figure 'unknowns' out which is the closest thing to impossible. (2) Double standard. You'll listen to one man's theory (where he tries to work things out through his own intellect), but you'll reject another's strong belief (which you classify as a theory - what I classify as a belief). (3) All I'm going to say is if you're going to try and figure out yourself the impossible, using information you've gathered from yourself and others, you might as well explore all 'avenues' of possibility, including 'creationism' and a higher being. (4) All I'm saying is your one of many millions out there searching for the 'truth.' If your going to stay loyal to yourself you might as well search and try to discover all possibilities instead of relying on other's abilities to work it out. Therefore there's no way of you bridging a gap between you and the 'truth,' if your keeping all your options open. (1) What exactly does this mean? The cyclic universe idea? I don't 'open myself up to it', I disbelieve it in much the same way that I do a creator-god. I do, however, find it compelling because it's a hugely novel idea to me. I understand the dynamic of creation perfectly: God --> everything (I'll try not to sound condesending by just putting a 'zap' in between those two things). (2) I'm being ignorant here (haven't read up on the possibilities of the cyclic model) but I wouldn't call either a 'theory'. They are both beliefs to me. I believe neither. (3) I don't rule either out. With the creation idea, though, I can't see why god is immune to creation himself. That's part of why I doubt. But then again, with the cyclic idea, I likewise question why existance is rather than is not. (4) I think the above points probably adress this as well.

Well, that explains that. (A) Simple extrapolation of atheist arguments. 1.) Being an atheist you naturally agree with this statement. God doesn't exist unless He's proved to exist as, until then, His existence is unsubstantiated and, in your mind, equal to believing in the FSM or the IPU. 2.) Since you agree, no problems here. (B) I still don't get what you're trying to say here. I agree with the first part, but the part after the comma confuses me. © Erm... Are you reading the same thread I am? Here's a quote from just a few responses ago. The title of the thread asks the question is God real. Two or so responses say they don't believe in God; (D) The rest of them state that God doesn't exist based on a lack of empirical evidence. Re-read the thread. It's plain as day :P (E) Erm... Joke? >_> (A) No, you're misrepresenting all atheism as strong atheism, so I don't naturally agree with the statement "god dosen't exist unless he's proven to exist". Weak atheists do not subscribe to any belief or truth statement such as "god does not exist". We may see him as realistic as the FSM etc but that's not to say we claim they don't exist just because of lack of evidence. Weak atheists merely lack belief in all such ideas and nothing more. (B) You clearly think that all atheists maintain some sort of belief in the proposition that god dosen't exist. This is wrong. Lack of positive belief for a concept (i.e. "I don't believe in god") doesn't necessitate belief in the antithesis of it (i.e. "I believe god does not exist"). © You've got one person out of the whole thread and you think that gives you artistic license to extrapolate that view over all atheists? As above, in doing so you're misrepresenting all atheists as strong atheists and in my experience, weak atheists far outnumber strong. Did you notice this comment of BlueLancer's?: Damn, looks like that pesky word 'possibility' makes the idea that BlueLancer believes that god does not exist because he's not proven null and void. By the way he was making a point about an unproven idea's place in debate. Also, didn't you notice that he said "they did exist" in reference to the swans? To me this would clearly indicate he does not believe that they popped into existence as soon as there was proof for their existence, which is what you'd have us all think is what atheists believe. (D) Are you sure about this? I seriously doubt all the atheists here believe or state that god dosen't exist merely because there's no evidence for him or he's not proven. Do they lack belief in him because of lack of empirical evidence? Sure. As for thinking a result of this lack of evidence is that he dosen't exist, I seriously doubt that's true of many of the people here. If you expect me to re-read this thread so you don't have to support your claim just because you say it's "plain as day", then think again. If it's so clear to you, quote at least one person other than BlueLancer who states that god dosen't exist because there's no evidence for him (ahh hell, go nuts, show me 10, after all, all but two atheist posters say what you claim they do) even though it's debatable that BlueLancer believes this at all. (E) No.

Some people don't see a creator as a particularly compelling answer nor do they see him as any more prone to "creationlessness" than some other arbitrary character. Some people just endlessly question on an issue like this and have no answer. I suppose you could call me one of those people. You act as if, you like to leave 'all your options open' when it comes to how the world was created by being open to all 'theories' yet you'll take in no consideration (you and the other big bang etc etc type of people) to the fact that there might be a creator. Big double standard if you ask me. There very well may be a creator. I'm not saying there isn't, I just reserve the right to argue against it or any other belief based idea. I'll inevitably argue against the creator-god idea as it's the most prominent and I think it's had it far too good for far too long.

Some people don't see a creator as a particularly compelling answer nor do they see him as any more prone to "creationlessness" than some other arbitrary character. Some people just endlessly question on an issue like this and have no answer. I suppose you could call me one of those people.

(1) Yes... Where have you been? Haven't you read the works of Charles Dawkins or Ayn Rand? (2) ...You might want to reword what you typed out, as it currently makes no sense. Anywho, since you misunderstood what I said, I'll try this again. Atheists generally believe two things: 1.) Anything which exists doesn't exist in actuality unless it's proved to exist. 2.) Not everything which might exist actually exists. I then went on to say that I have a problem with these two assumptions because: 1.) Proof doesn't presuppose existence. After all, black swans existed before we knew they did. 2.) While everything which might exist won't actually exist, some things which might exist will exist. Understand? (3) I don't know what you said, but I know the difference between strong atheism and weak atheism. Strongs atheists claim that God doesn't exist; Weak atheists claim that God might exist but the probability of Him doing so is minute. Huh? I really don't understand what you said here >_> (1) No. (2) I'm an atheist and I don't believe either of those things (though I'd probably see number 2 the way you do). I guess that makes me not part of the 'general' atheists. Where did you read that atheists believe these things? As for my comment, it makes sense, it's just difficult to read because I didn't contract the words I should have - "As far as I know, atheists don't believe in something untill it's in some way proven to exist, they don't believe it doesn't exist." Just read it slowly. In my experience atheists don't say "that which is unproven dosen't exist", they merely don't believe in that which is unproven. (3) Basically. So in other words weak atheists will lack the belief in god that theists have. To sum that up, my only gripe with you is how you can say most atheists believe something like "if it isn't proven, it dosen't exist". Where did you hear this?

Yep, people sometimes equate facts with "truth" but this is not the case. Like anything in science, a fact, which denotes a high level of certainty to the extent where witholding acceptance of it would be beyond any reasonable doubt, is tentative i.e. it can change. As for 2000 years time, who really knows. I doubt any of the more fundamental concepts of science would have been overturned, and I'd say some like genetics and biochemistry will just go from strength to strength in the coming years (thanks to me lol 8-) ), but you can never know for sure what's around the corner.

Two things here: 1.) You totally ignored the whole "Appeal to morality" thing, evidenced by the fact that you continue to A.) Use pejorative terms and B.) Misconstrue what I was actually saying. Which bring me to my second point. 2.) I believe the phrase is "All men are created equal". Not all cultures adhere to said premise, as some cultures require women to be subservient to men whilst in other children are seen as the property of their parents and are sold off in the the slave trade whilst yet, in other, people originating from outside the country are generally denied basic rights under the law etc. (See: Some of Latin/South America, most of Africa, the Middle East, most of southeast Asia and Russia). Just so you know >_> Existence is independent of proof. Things don't exist because you can prove them. They exist because they, well, exist. Normally, I'd avoid Wikipedia like the plague, but I CBA to write out a long, drawn out paragraph or two or three: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence# ... _existence And, yet again, this entire blurb is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with anything I've talked about thus far. *Sigh* I'm kinda' tired of saying this, but proof doesn't presuppose existence. Things will exist regardless of whether or not you acknowledge that they might exist. However, that's really a moot point. If the heavens opened rained blood, fire rose from the ground and a loud voice boomed "I am God", (1) the atheist would argue that He's no longer God as now there's scientific evidence of his existence, at which point He becomes provable and is no longer God. Welcome to a few responses ago :wall: You just NOW figured this out? Anything can exist. Everyone knows that. However, some things which can exist won't exist. No one is debating that, either. (2) However, most atheists make the claim (Or at least insinuate) that anything which can exist doesn't exist unless it's first proven or, in other words, because something which can exist won't exist then everything which can exist won't exist as well. That's a faulty assumption which has been disproved time and time again. Didn't we, like, already go over this? *Sigh* Oh well... One more time can't hurt. Anyway, without further ado, I present you with proof that God exists (Well, at least the Judeo-Christian one): Read the Bible. (There's a reason why religious beliefs are an admissable defense in a court of law.) (1) You really think so? :-s I sure don't. That sounds rediculous to me. (2) You really think so? :-s I sure don't. That sounds rediculous to me. As far as I know, astheists don't believe in something untill it is in some way proven to exist, they don't believe it does not exist. People who believe god does not exist are strong atheists, which takes the basic "lack of belief in god" (weak atheism - the basis of all atheism) to the next level. Either you or I have no real idea how atheists think. Seeing as I am one and given the track record of theists misrepresenting atheists and atheism (sorry to stereotype you, I don't normally do it), I'd argue you're wrong on both above counts.

Exactly. Which is why time is finite. At some point there was a beginning. Energy can be converted to matter and vice versa, but there is a loss in transfer. Yes, that energy is conserved, but not in any usable fashion. It's just there, not energy nor matter. Over time, energy degrades because of this loss. If time was infinite, you might as well be dividing by zero. Because of it's linear fashion, time must be finite. I'm graduating to middle school physics on this one. From rough recall, the 2007 article (from the New Zealand guy?) resolves the thermodynamic problem. Got no idea how, why or if it's solid, but just letting you know. Edit: I'm talking about this, not sure whether the op talked about it. The evidence for that article relies heavily upon the dark matter, who's properties are less than theoretive (more like speculative). If this discovery happened 15-30 years ago, I'd be more willing to listen. But this evidence is literally months old. Even Einstein or Hawking haven't used theories that young. I agree. I'm not saying that this idea is in any way strong because of (a) my own ignorance, and (B) the point you mentioned of it being 'groundbreaking' stuff.